| Author |
Message |
linuxdoctor Infallible Persona

Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 1530 Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jacky wrote: | | That's what you think. I don't regard Microsoft as evil, at least. |
Which, of course, begs the question, why not? They have gotten where they are on the backs of violated copyrights and patents, bankrupting smaller competitor companies, blackmailing large non-completing companies like IBM and Intel and defying the laws of more than a dozen countries. They have been convicted of economic crimes in most of them, including the United States, France and the EU.
What makes you think that they are not evil? _________________ Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics.
Big business is a disease we will need to cure before we will ever achieve real prosperity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
marinaroz Grey Scaled

Joined: 04 Mar 2004 Posts: 3101 Location: Israel
|
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I remember Windows 3.11 vaguely, what I remember most about it was how unstable and slow it was. Sure, it was more fun to look at than DOS, but that is where the fun ended. It would crush even if I just wanted to open a solitaire game, half the time!
Now Windows 95, I have a lot of memories associated with that one. When I did my time at the army, it was my job to fix up computers, so I did countless installs of Windows 95. It was the era before CD's became very common, mind you, so I carried around a bunch of diskettes with the install, plus a collection of drivers for every purpose, since the computers were a mishmash of mismatching hardware and the install rarely went smoothly. I took great pleasure in formatting the 95 off though, even if I had to put it back on all over again.
On we go. NT and 2000 were both a pain in the rear. Mostly because they're more administratively secured than 95, and so finding out just what is wrong with the computer was more difficult. I had the 2000 on my home computer for a while, but got rid of it when I realized that Internet Explorer 7, which I needed for developing sites, was not available for it. So I switched to XP.
Windows XP was great. Really. For my needs, it was perfect, and though it slowed down with time, I was still happy with it. It only crashed for me once, and that happeded because of a stupid hotfix from microsoft, as I later came to learn.
Anyway, now I have Vista, and I'm very happy with it too. I'm more of a casual user at home, as I don't work from home anymore, but I had no problems other than a couple of minor software incompatibilities with Vista. The computer that I use for Vista now, is much more powerful than the one I had XP on though, so that makes a difference too. _________________ Tarakana NET |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-Trel Zen

Joined: 02 Dec 2002 Posts: 5966 Location: Nirvana by Boredom
|
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
My best Windows experience was wiping away Windows ME and installing Windows XP. Microsoft got a lot of things right with Windows XP and that is commendable.
Regarding the off topic nature of some posts that mcwkm mentioned: Microsoft isn't very popular so you'll have some discussion with experiences like "Removing it". It might not be exactly what you were hoping for in the thread, but it hasn't stooped to the level of trolling yet. _________________ What would you like to see at L2P? We want your suggestions!
Need Help? Technical Support • Knowledgebase • Flash Demos • Signup Questions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Jacky 3.14159265358979323846264

Joined: 01 Jan 2005 Posts: 4175
|
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-Trel wrote: | My best Windows experience was wiping away Windows ME and installing Windows XP. Microsoft got a lot of things right with Windows XP and that is commendable.
Regarding the off topic nature of some posts that mcwkm mentioned: Microsoft isn't very popular so you'll have some discussion with experiences like "Removing it". It might not be exactly what you were hoping for in the thread, but it hasn't stooped to the level of trolling yet. | It's a pity I don't get to use versions of Windows earlier than XP much because I don't own a computer then. I have used 95 and 98 but that's only sometimes when I can get my hands on one.
Yes Microsoft can be considered to have done a good job with Windows XP. Till now I believe that it has a larger market share than Windows Vista.
I like how Windows XP is simple yet complicated. Simple as in you don't see a lot of graphics in action like in Vista and the Windows XP themes are quite eye-candy. I don't know how to explain the complicated except to say that it can do a lot of things yet look simpler than Vista.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Jacky wrote: | | That's what you think. I don't regard Microsoft as evil, at least. |
Which, of course, begs the question, why not? They have gotten where they are on the backs of violated copyrights and patents, bankrupting smaller competitor companies, blackmailing large non-completing companies like IBM and Intel and defying the laws of more than a dozen countries. They have been convicted of economic crimes in most of them, including the United States, France and the EU.
What makes you think that they are not evil? |
Because my definition of evil is different from yours. _________________
| ClickFanatic wrote: | Your nonsense make my forum visits rather brief, Jacky. It's like:
"Hey look, a reply notification!"
*click* *click*
*reading garbage*
"Oh it was Jacky again..."
*close* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm Lifeless Person

Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 748 Location: ct
|
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| To be honest all of the NT based Windows versions were much better then the 9X series. I only remember my time on NT 4.0, 2000 and XP but they were vastly superior to the 95, 98, 98se and ME which the only one released before 4.0 was 95. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-Trel Zen

Joined: 02 Dec 2002 Posts: 5966 Location: Nirvana by Boredom
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcwkm wrote: | | To be honest all of the NT based Windows versions were much better then the 9X series. I only remember my time on NT 4.0, 2000 and XP but they were vastly superior to the 95, 98, 98se and ME which the only one released before 4.0 was 95. |
You never used NT 3.5.. evil thing that. _________________ What would you like to see at L2P? We want your suggestions!
Need Help? Technical Support • Knowledgebase • Flash Demos • Signup Questions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven Evil Belgian Waffle

Joined: 06 Jun 2004 Posts: 8144 Location: Belgium
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-Trel wrote: | | You never used NT 3.5.. evil thing that. |
Any NT version before 4 should never be spoken off. _________________ Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm Lifeless Person

Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 748 Location: ct
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-Trel wrote: | | mcwkm wrote: | | To be honest all of the NT based Windows versions were much better then the 9X series. I only remember my time on NT 4.0, 2000 and XP but they were vastly superior to the 95, 98, 98se and ME which the only one released before 4.0 was 95. |
You never used NT 3.5.. evil thing that. |
I used windows 3.1 at home until windows 98 so yeah and we had 4.0 in the high school. I missed a lot of those really bad windows releases |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
spock Lifeless Person

Joined: 23 Mar 2005 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Switching from Windows 98 to XP. Windows 98 crashed 3 times an hour. Windows XP about once every 2 days (I like to have a lot of stuff open, and that seems to take it's toll on the system's stability. However, it was a wonderful improvement. )
p.s. I still like Linux better, however, Windows XP is still quite good. _________________ My new site |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|